EFF vs. Facebook: Part 2: "Facebook's Connections"
eff.org
eff.org
Put a lobster in already boiling water and it screams, stick it in room-temp water and heat to boiling and the lobster won't notice it's being cooked until it's too late...
I'm leaving my college pictures up there because its not unheard of to be a drunk American college student, plus these years are behind me.
But my Facebook activity is now limited to keeping in touch with my friends by reading their content. Not the other way around.
Next thing we know our inboxes are public. We simply can't trust Mark anymore.
But this latest change has another implication: it decreases the ability for expression on my profile. For example, in the Favorite Music section, I had shared a favorite lyric. Now, I'm limited to just listing bands.
While I understand the monetization reasons for "normalizing" the profiles, ultimately it makes them less interesting. I want to read a free-form description of a friends activities. A normalized bullet-list is much less attractive.
Until now, my take on Facebook has been "I'm not too excited about the way they do things, but it's where I keep up with people who aren't engaged in other platforms." If future changes decrease the utility of the platform like this one does, that argument for staying won't hold much longer.
I don't think it's good enough for the folks at Facebook just to say "Privacy is dead. Get over it". In the real world those people who are not rampant exhibitionists do want and expect to have some level of privacy - some degree of control over what information they give to who. Ultimately it's about the dignity and integrity of the individual.
Personally, I would prefer a non-profit. I can't stand a private company like Facebook being the primary gateway to my social life. I would like to see multiple companies involved, but it would be a lot more difficult to get the network benefits of Facebook with multiple sites.
Is it time to think about it again, or is it just Slashdot and HN posters this time?
The solution is to not rely on "sites" -- to not give them the opportunity to act as corporations must.
My take on it is http://wingolog.org/archives/2010/04/10/towards-a-gnu-autono... , but there are other takes to be had.
The only thing that bothers me is point 6.
> Facebook sometimes creates a Connection when you post to your wall. If you use the name of a Connection in a post on your wall, it may show up on the Connection Page, without you even knowing it.
This is a little sneaky. I wouldn't have a problem if the connections were just behind the scenes (ie: not visible). Then it would be no different from Google checking for keywords in your emails so that they can target ads at you.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Puppies/108139455886477 http://www.facebook.com/pages/Rainbows/110404012323116
(disclaimer: I work for Facebook)
http://facebookiswatchingyou.blogspot.com/2010/04/what-you-s...
The only bit that holds a particularly serious concern to me is the global snippets bit which drags your wall posts out into the connections page - I've seen some random and utterly irrelevant messages appear there and that is worrying... (it would, perhaps, be better if they implemented the # tag style system similar to what they've done with @name now)
Facebook sometimes creates a Connection when you post to your wall. If you use the name of a Connection in a post on your wall, it may show up on the Connection Page, without you even knowing it. (For example, if you use the word "FBI" in a post).
Let's say you put "xbox" on your wall. Now you're connected to Xbox. Does an advertiser get the distinction between "this person has visited the xbox website and said they liked it (a good candidate to sell a video game) vs. this person just happened to type xbox on their wall (probably not as good of a candidate).
The only way to show up as someone who "likes" Xbox is to click a like button somewhere.